Point of Law: Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.664 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.54 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC pending before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 14.03.2023.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused. The two became acquaintances. The acquaintance turned into relationship and the relationship into sexual relationship. This is said to have gone on for a long period. The allegation is that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent/complainant and has later breached the promise of marriage and, therefore, the contention is that consent of the complainant was obtained by inducement on false promise of marriage. On the said alegation, the 2nd respondent registers a crime in Crime No.54 of 2021 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police, after investigation, file a charge sheet in the matter and the case is now registered as S.C.No.664 of 2022 and pending before the learned Sessions Judge. Filing of charge sheet by the Police after investigation thereto is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Chetan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned State Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 and Smt. Veena J.Kamath along with Ms. Lekha G.D., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that it is not one or two, but for five years the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant were in love, wanted to get married, but in view of caste equations not meeting, the marriage could not take place despite hectic efforts on the part of the petitioner. It is then the complainant turns around and brands the relationship of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent to be on the false pretext of marriage and alleges that the petitioner had sexual intercourse on several occasions on that pretext and, therefore, it amounts to rape. He would contend that it would not amount to rape by any stretch of imagination as it was consensual.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Smt. Veena J.Kamath would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court through the complaint, Section 164 CrPC statement and summary of the charge sheet to contend that, if consent is obtained by false promise or false pretext that the accused would marry the complainant, it would amount to rape, as consent is not given by free will. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon several judgments which point at consent being taken on false pretext of marriage and seeks to make a distinction with regard to promise of marriage and false promise of marriage. She would submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean as it requires evidence to establish whether it was a sexual intercourse between the two, on promise of marriage or on a false promise of marriage.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor Sri Kiran S. Javali representing the respondent/State would also vehemently oppose the petition to contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. The Police have filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and the contents of the charge sheet clearly reveal that sexual intercourse had taken place on account of false promise of marriage.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant was the friend of another, who was the friend of the petitioner, which was the link for the complainant befriending the petitioner. The relationship between